[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The GreatViews expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:55 pm Post subject: Are the BRITISH Continuing To Make Trouble For America?

Are the BRITISH Continuing To Make Trouble For America in Iraq and Iran? Please take the time to be open-minded and read the following three articles which have all been written by people of various political leanings.

"Strains in the Anglo-American special relationship?"Mother Jones Blog (Isn't Sistani just another British Ayatollah Agent? Should we really trust the future of a democratic Iraq / Middle East with more Ayatollahs? Look at what kind of hell the European-Installed Ayatollah Khomeini created over the past 25 years! Could Juan Cole actually have a point when he alludes to the fact that British may be using Sistani to STAB America, our soldiers, and freedom's march in the back? Shouldn't we just finish off Sadr once in for all? Do the British and Sistani want America out - and do they want to put up a road block in front of our efforts to 'FREE IRAN'?)

Keep on the lookout for signs of tension between the U.S. and Great Britain. Juan Cole wonders whether our biggest ally authorized Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani's return to Iraq, over the implicit objections of the U.S. military:

Note that [Sistani] did not fly into American-controlled Baghdad but rather to Kuwait, traveling overland to Basra. Since Basra is in British hands, with a Shiite governor that seems pro-Sistani, it seems possible that Sistani's people coordinated his return with the British and with the Basra authorities rather than with the United States and the Allawi government. Indeed, America's most militant asset in Najaf, governor Ali al-Zurfi, seems dead set against Sistani returning with crowds this way.

You have to wonder if the British MI6 and military are showing some insubordination toward the Americans by allowing all this, as a mark of their disapproval of the gung-ho Marine attacks in Najaf, which have caused trouble in the British-held South and endangered the British garrisons.

It's not a bad conjecture. The British, recall, have always been leery of the U.S.'s "drop the hammer" counterinsurgency tactics -- so maybe they think that killing Sadr isn't such a great idea.

This wouldn't be the first time the British have defused an American crisis. Back in June, there was that little border incident, when U.S. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez ordered British troops to prepare for a "full-scale ground offensive" against Iran, before British FM Jack Straw stepped in and resolved matters diplomatically. But this might be the first time the British have tried to undercut the U.S. strategically, and that's big news. Is Tony Blair still simmering after Colin Powell embarrassed him by shooting down his proposal for Iraqi military autonomy? Is that why Blair won't come to the U.S. and accept his Congressional Medal of Honor? And more importantly, are we in for more bickering and backbiting?

MY ENEMY’S enemy isn’t always my friend. Sometimes he’s just another enemy, as Jack Straw is now painfully discovering. In the past three months one of the major planks of British diplomacy has collapsed underneath the Foreign Secretary.

For the past three years Mr Straw has been practising a policy of “constructive engagement” towards Iran. He, and his advisers, believed that the regime in Tehran was uniquely placed to be wooed and won. Sandwiched, as it was, between Taleban Afghanistan and Saddam’s Iraq, and hostile to both, it appeared to be a valuable potential ally in the war against terrorism. As an enemy of two of Britain’s post-9/11 enemies, Iran seemed to be a suitable candidate for the role of New Best Friend. To that end, Mr Straw has visited Tehran five times in the past two years, making it one of his frequent-flyer destinations.

There were those, not least within the Bush Administration, who doubted the wisdom of placing so many eggs in a Persian basket. But the British diplomatic establishment was so convinced of the worth of this charm offensive that it persuaded Tony Blair to use up much of his valuable political capital in America to secure White House acquiescence for Mr Straw’s strategy.

The Americans not only swallowed their doubts about the wisdom of Mr Straw’s plan, they also kept quiet when France and Germany joined in. The EU foreign ministers soon used their policy of “constructive engagement” with Iran as a stick with which to beat the White House. Germany and France celebrated the potential of their subtle diplomatic footwork with Iran, claiming that the Europeans were showing those stoopid white men in the Pentagon how subtlety rather than force was the best way to win friends and influence people in the Middle East.

The Germans, British and French may well have succeeded in influencing Iranian policy by their actions. But it is hard to see how Iran’s actions recently can be considered friendly. Even by French standards.

In the past three months Iran has kidnapped eight British servicemen, compelling Britain to truckle for their release; used its agents to foment insurgency and unrest in Iraq; arranged a summit with Syria to discuss future terrorist co-operation; and started a process designed to secure itself an atomic bomb in defiance of international agreements. The best estimates, from European diplomats, put Iran just one year away from having the raw material for a bomb and three years from deploying a deliverable device.

Even some of those who were once most enthusiastic about the prospect of developing a “constructive” relationship with Iran, such as Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, have been compelled to express their “great concerns” at Iran’s activity. But Herr Fischer, like Mr Straw, still seems incapable of recognising that it has been precisely because of their policy that there is such cause for concern now.

The regime in Tehran has interpreted the EU’s desire to develop a constructive relationship as Western weakness, and America’s acquiescence while she is involved in Iraq as confirmation of that weakness. Like all states that practise violence against their own people and terror against others, Iran construes weakness in other nations as a licence for further repression at home and adventurism abroad.

In the period during which Mr Straw has been visiting Tehran, the Iranian leadership has crushed even the few licensed dissenters it had once allowed a modicum of freedom and also violently suppressed pro-democracy demonstrations.

It is not only within its own borders that Iran has been working to subvert democracy. At the time of the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq, the Iranian leadership met President Assad of Syria to review how they might further destabilise Iraqi progress towards representative government. Iranian support for Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr’s insurgency has been just one of Tehran’s tactics. It is particularly ironic that Britain’s “constructive” approach to Tehran has thus allowed Iranian-backed fighters to put British soldiers in their sights.

Having argued in this space that constructive engagement with Iran was an error, since the policy began, it seems to me inexplicable that more voices have not been raised to oppose Mr Straw’s appeasement. The regime in Tehran has never been a plausible potential ally in the War on Terror for the simple reason that it has been one of the main sponsors of terrorism across the world since its inception.

And it has shown no signs of wishing to desist from practising terror at any point in the past 25 years. The Islamic republic, from the moment it announced its arrival on the world stage by taking the residents of Tehran’s American Embassy hostage, has always signalled its contempt for the conventions of Western diplomacy and its faith in terrorism as a tool of political advance. The latest evidence of Iran’s implacable attachment to terror comes in the findings of the congressional investigation into 9/11, which demonstrates complicity between Iran and al-Qaeda.

There is no longer any excuse for Mr Straw to cling to the corpse of a failed policy, nor for others to acquiesce silently in his folly. We need to work now to support the appetite for democracy among the Iranian people just as we gave hope to Soviet dissidents and Polish trade unionists in the 1980s — by backing those who broadcast the truth to the oppressed, funding those who will organise for change and showing those who are really the West’s friends that we know a shared enemy when we see one.

Many on the left, most visibly Presidential contender John Kerry, often claim that the "coalition of the willing" is weak and that participation from the international community has been minimal if anything. Opponents of President Bush use such claims in order to discredit the legitimacy of this noble endeavor for freedom. It may not be such a bad idea to look at the state of our coalition, not in an effort to attack President Bush, but rather to conduct a healthy reassessment and critique of the coalition and our allies.

Several weeks ago, Michael Rubin returned from the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, and upon his return resigned from the Pentagon. In recent weeks Mr. Rubin has expressed his views regarding the region, most notably illustrating the many links between the Islamic clerical regime in Iran and much of the violence that has broken out across Iraq, evident in the actions of Al Sadr and his fanatical brigade who have reportedly received millions of dollars in funding from the mullahs in Iran.

An article published in the Telegraph of London yesterday quoted Mr. Rubin's sentiments that "British officials clearly had little interest in pursuing the White House vision of a democratic Iraq, a keystone of its foreign policy, and were too 'soft' in confronting dissent." The article goes on to say that "many US officials had been startled at their British counterparts' attempts to capitalize on their presence in southern Iraq for a 'freelance' fostering of ties with Iran, one of Washington's most implacable enemies." The article also discusses the tension between Paul Bremer and his British counterpart, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, by quoting a provisional authority insider who said, "There was an understanding in the CPA that Bremer and Greenstock didn't like each other. It personified the differences between the two views. Greenstock thought Bremer was naive; Bremer thought Greenstock was pursuing the wrong policies."

It is no big surprise to many who have followed the region's history and the mullahcracy's economic ties with nations who proclaim to be supporters in the War on Terror, that such concerns are now gaining visibility. Because we cannot continue to escape the truth by thinking of this historic conflict in the same superficial light the media shines on it, we are obliged to look carefully at the fact that the British government has been a staunch supporter of the regime in Iran since the early days of the Islamic Republic, although this relationship has scarcely been mentioned until now. Mr. Rubin's statements represent some of the first high-level public acknowledgments of this worrisome arrangement.

Michael Rubin's resignation is not the first of its kind. Richard Perle, a strong supporter of freedom throughout the Middle East, resigned from the Defense Policy Board in February. These resignations and statements that have recently surfaced all raise the question: are the so-called "neocons", or those who believe in America's duty to nurture and defend freedom throughout the world, including Iran, unhappy with the direction in which the Bush administration is now headed, and is it perhaps even plausible to suggest that the ideology of the Richard Armitage/Colin Powell types, who believe Iran is a "sort-of" democracy, gaining ground?

We cannot forget that the the British have contributed around 10,000 troops to the Iraqi theater, but as Americans, should we really be thankful? British deployments have been exclusively located in regions of Iraq that have been uncannily stable since the fall of Saddam's regime, a region that is also heavily Shiite. Dozens of reports have been issued that explain the influx of Islamic-regime sponsored agents and clerics since the US invasion, but why aren't British forces who occupy Shiite regions in southeastern Iraq, an ideological safe haven and staging ground for the Mullah's agents, experiencing the same sort of turbulence that American soldiers are experiencing elsewhere? Of course these are all questions, but they are questions that need to be asked, because if it is determined that there is some correlation between resistance that certain coalition forces (American soldiers) are facing and British trade agreements with Iran, then perhaps the United States should ask the Mullahs to bestow similar kindness to American forces.

Considering the importance of this momentous effort to free the people of the Middle East (both Arabs and Persians), it is critical that the allies of liberty, human rights and justice all have the same goals and objectives in mind, because in the end there is only one kind of freedom. If it is discovered to be the case that a particular ally has objectives that are not in alignment with ours, then it is better we address this problem sooner rather than later, before we reach the point of no return.

Forward-thinking analysts and intellectuals rightfully believe that in order for Iraq to stabilize and institutions of freedom and justice to succeed, the regime in Iran must fall. A free and democratic Iraq would be a major blow to the Mullahs, which would likely result in an overthrow of the regime, and the only thing the Mullahs fear more than an all out military assault against their nuclear sites is the overthrow of their illegitimate mafia rule. They will use all means available to prevent such a scenario; they will continue to stir unrest throughout Iraq, with hopes that democracy will not rise and President Bush will not be re-elected.

Ultimately, the question we should be demanding that the Bush Administration, Congress and Senate ask themselves is: if the British have close economic ties and relationships with the regime in Iran, but are also part of the coalition to bring freedom to the peoples of the region, does such an arrangement signify a conflict of interest, and if it does, how should such a conflict be resolved? As the battle wages, the only “wrong policy” is to accuse the United States of being "naive" in our struggle to bring freedom to those who shed tears of blood as they await their liberation.

If you have the time and think this compilation is very important then please email to everyone you know as well as all major media, newspapers, magazines, radio, etc.._________________Haleh -
There can only be ONE Iran, a FREE one.

Al-Sistani and al-Sadr held negotiations in a house in Najaf, al-Sistani's deputy said.

Hamid al-Khafaf, an al-Sistani spokesman, said the deal is aimed at ending three weeks of fighting that have ravaged Najaf and nearby Kufa.

As part of the deal, Iraq's government won't press charges against renegade cleric al-Sadr, said Kasim Daoud, Iraq's minister of state for military affairs.

"Muqtada al-Sadr is free to go anywhere he likes. ... He is as free as any Iraqi citizen," Daoud said.

The deal with Muqtada al-Sadr who is responsible for many killing is unacceptable. This is another Jack Straw dirty game for embarrassing U.S.
The future will be the best proof for another bad decision in Iraq by those who made it.

Al-Sistani and al-Sadr held negotiations in a house in Najaf, al-Sistani's deputy said.

Hamid al-Khafaf, an al-Sistani spokesman, said the deal is aimed at ending three weeks of fighting that have ravaged Najaf and nearby Kufa.

As part of the deal, Iraq's government won't press charges against renegade cleric al-Sadr, said Kasim Daoud, Iraq's minister of state for military affairs.

"Muqtada al-Sadr is free to go anywhere he likes. ... He is as free as any Iraqi citizen," Daoud said.

The deal with Muqtada al-Sadr who is responsible for many killing is unacceptable. This is another Jack Straw dirty game for embarrassing U.S.
The future will be the best proof for another bad decision in Iraq by those who made it.

I agree 100%_________________Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)

Atefeh Rajabi appears to have been a fairly normal 16-year-old: sulky, disobedient, and eager to have sex. In London, those attributes earn lectures from parents and teachers on the importance of acting responsibly and not being offensive. In the city of Neka in Iran, where Atefeh Rajabi comes from, they get you hauled up in front of a judge.

Atefeh's typical teenage behaviour meant that she was charged and found guilty of "acts incompatible with chastity". The judge in the Islamic court ruled that the appropriate penalty was death. That's right: death. Her sentence was confirmed by Iran's Supreme Court.

Two weeks ago, on August 15, the 16-year-old girl was hung from a crane in the main square of Neka, in full public view, in order to keep "society safe from acts against public morality".

Sharia law, the Islamic code which is supposed to govern punishments in Iran, states that unmarried people who have sex should be punished with 100 lashes. That was the chastisement meted out to the single man with whom Atefeh was accused of "committing acts incompatible with chastity".

Married women who have sexual relations with someone who is not their husband should, according to Sharia, be stoned to death - although Iran's chief justice, apparently revolted by the cruelty of pelting women with rocks, ruled two years ago that stonings should be abandoned.

Hanging is not prescribed for either category of transgressor. So what was the judge (one Haji Rezaie) doing sentencing an "unchaste" 16-year-old to hang? He said that she had a "sharp tongue" and had "undressed in court".

It seems that all she did was to take off her headscarf and insist that she was the victim of an older man's advances: but even if she had stripped naked and called the judge a fat ignorant bastard, those actions would hardly merit death, even under Islamic law. Nevertheless, the judge was so outraged that he decided he would personally put the noose round the child's neck.

That disgraceful and disgusting "punishment" has excited a great deal of condemnation in Iran among the reformists. As far as I can see, it has not produced any comment here. Amnesty International issued a statement expressing outrage at the execution (the tenth of a child in Iran since 1990) - but no British newspaper or television station has reported this.

Why not? The two extremes of pro- and anti-Muslim sentiment in Britain are now united in not expecting even the most minimal ethical standards from Islamic countries such as Iran: the pros because they think that Islamic laws should not be criticised for fear of giving offence; the antis because they think all Muslims are just a bunch of irredeemable barbarians.

Those two extreme views have infected media coverage. What would be headline news if it happened in America (can you imagine the response if a 16-year-old girl was executed for having sex in Texas?) is, because it happens in an Islamic state, apparently too banal to count.

That attitude guarantees that more children will suffer Atefeh's fate. Of course, it suits our Government - which is pushing for greater trade links with our new-found ally, Iran - just fine if people think that criticism of Islamic judges is inappropriate because standards are different. But respecting Islam does not require accepting the judicial murder of 16-year-olds (or indeed anyone, of any age) for having sex. That's wrong wherever it happens. We need a Government, and a press, that says so.

Straw and Blair - could you two guys just stop this nonsense of supporting Mullahs - you've been killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians for past 25 years - have been responsible for drugging all of our children, raping our women, and creating an islamofascist time bomb. THE BIG 3 POLICY OF MAKING LOVE TO THE MULLAHS NEEDS TO CEASE!!!!_________________IRANIANS UNITEPERSIA LIVES ON!!FREE IRAN NOW!

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:38 pm Post subject: As an Israeli I can tell you that you're worng, Britian is

our ally, and so does Sistani.
America is humiliating A-Sadr, and Britian is helping America to fight against this Iranian puppet.
Sistani supports democracy, just like El-Hiwi did, and just like Baker-El-Hakim did.
He knows exactly how Iran tries to take over Shiite Iraq with their fat puppet- A Sadr.
He did brought tens of thousands of people to take over the Shrine from A-Sadr, to help the Coalition forces.
Britian is fighting against the IRF, just like America does, and they humiliated A Sadr, when they kicked him out of Najaf city.

By the way, I am the IFI- Israel For Iran, and I am back.
I called myself "Iranian Liberation Forces" because I do think that America and Israel should make up start an armed rebel group that will be backed by the Iranian people and will fight against the Iranian Revolution Forces insides Iran, and I think that this is how it should be called!!!

surprisingly enough, same senario repeats over and again, and they fall for it every single time!

Persian, I don't think that the CIA and the Bush administration are ignorant of the British/Ayatolla alliance. But just think how rediculous the government would look to the world if they openly voiced this as fact. It would rob the U.S. of credibility and foster resentment between the Brittish people and the U.S. Their day of reconning is coming but patients is in order. If George Bush voiced this to the world, just think of how crazy he would sound. Remember, 99% of the worlds population don't really take enough interest in things like this and don't take the time to really think about it._________________Liberalism is NOT a political philosophy.
It IS a MENTAL DISORDER! (Michael Savage)
Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.

Eski, with all due respect, don't boll'$hit me please leave it to Ayatollahs to talk nonsense!

I SAID IF ...I REPEAT, IF ...USA IS HONEST ABOUT WHAT IT CLAIMS,

IT'S ONLY FAIR TO THE WORLD, ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE OF BRITAIN, ESPECIALLY THE LOUD MOUTH BIRITHS ACTIVISTS PROPAGATING AGAINST USA WITH EVERY BREATH THEY TAKE:

TO EXPOSE THE AYATOLLAHS' BRITISH LINKS!

OTHERWISE, NEITHER THE MULLAHS NOR THE EUROPE WILL EVER TAKE US SERIOUSLY.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION: THEY DON'T! NEITHER MULLAHS NOR EUROPE AND ESPECIALLY THE BRITS NEVER TOOK US SERIOUSLY.

BRITAIN KNOWS VERY WELL, IT CAN MANIPULATE US POLICIES, POLITICIANS AND ADMINISTRATIONS TO GO ALONG WITH ITS PLANS. MUCH LIKE IN BRINGING ISLAMIST TERRORISTS INTO POWER IN 79!

SO.

IF I WERE AN AMERICAN, I WOULD AT LEAST, AT LEAST, BE AS LOUD MOUTH AS THE BRITISH ACTIVISTS ARE AGAINST MY LAND AND ALL I STAND FOR. (LET ALONE THAT MOST OF THESE GROUPS GET THEIR INFO AND DIRECTIONS FROM HIGHER SOURCES IN UK. INTELLIGENCE SOURCES.

I BELIEVE WORLS POPULATION WELCOMES A MORE TRANSPARENT WORLD POLITICS. IT'S THE DIRTY POLITICS THEY CAN NO LONGER STAND!

SO, PLEASE DON'T TRY TO PROTECT THE DIRTY POLITICS OF INFILTRATIONS, CORRUPTIONS, AND SECRET SOCIETIES. THEY BELONG TO STONE HENGE, AND COLONIALIST ERA: AND HUMANITY WANTS NO PART OF THAT IN FUTURE OF THE GLOBE.

BESIDES, AN OPEN GLOBAL TRADE, OR THE "GLOBAL VILLAGE" WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY.

A PERSISTANCE COLONIALIST POLITICS, PUSHED BY EU, IS A GREAT DANGER TO ALL ASPIRATIONS OF HUMANITY.

LET'S SMARTEN UP AND STOP COVERING UP FOR DIRTY BLOODY COLONIALIST FASCISTS!

A BRIGHT FUTURE FOR THE GLOBE WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE AS LONG AS WE DON'T EXPOSE THE DARK UNDERWORLD, AND SMOKE'EM OUTTA THEIR CAVES! _________________Long live Iran.

The Republicans are talking about spreading freedom. The IRANIAN SITUATION is the most clear example they can show this ideology and objective in action. If the US Government fails to defend the Iranian people in this major effort to defeat terrorism - HISTORY WILL RECORD SUCH INEPTNESS AND FAULTY POLICY - If President Bush cannot take out the Mullahs, he will be judged as a failure in history.

Eski, with all due respect, don't boll'$hit me please leave it to Ayatollahs to talk nonsense!

I SAID IF ...I REPEAT, IF ...USA IS HONEST ABOUT WHAT IT CLAIMS,

IT'S ONLY FAIR TO THE WORLD, ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE OF BRITAIN, ESPECIALLY THE LOUD MOUTH BIRITHS ACTIVISTS PROPAGATING AGAINST USA WITH EVERY BREATH THEY TAKE:

TO EXPOSE THE AYATOLLAHS' BRITISH LINKS!

OTHERWISE, NEITHER THE MULLAHS NOR THE EUROPE WILL EVER TAKE US SERIOUSLY.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION: THEY DON'T! NEITHER MULLAHS NOR EUROPE AND ESPECIALLY THE BRITS NEVER TOOK US SERIOUSLY.

BRITAIN KNOWS VERY WELL, IT CAN MANIPULATE US POLICIES, POLITICIANS AND ADMINISTRATIONS TO GO ALONG WITH ITS PLANS. MUCH LIKE IN BRINGING ISLAMIST TERRORISTS INTO POWER IN 79!

SO.

IF I WERE AN AMERICAN, I WOULD AT LEAST, AT LEAST, BE AS LOUD MOUTH AS THE BRITISH ACTIVISTS ARE AGAINST MY LAND AND ALL I STAND FOR. (LET ALONE THAT MOST OF THESE GROUPS GET THEIR INFO AND DIRECTIONS FROM HIGHER SOURCES IN UK. INTELLIGENCE SOURCES.

I BELIEVE WORLS POPULATION WELCOMES A MORE TRANSPARENT WORLD POLITICS. IT'S THE DIRTY POLITICS THEY CAN NO LONGER STAND!

SO, PLEASE DON'T TRY TO PROTECT THE DIRTY POLITICS OF INFILTRATIONS, CORRUPTIONS, AND SECRET SOCIETIES. THEY BELONG TO STONE HENGE, AND COLONIALIST ERA: AND HUMANITY WANTS NO PART OF THAT IN FUTURE OF THE GLOBE.

BESIDES, AN OPEN GLOBAL TRADE, OR THE "GLOBAL VILLAGE" WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY.

A PERSISTANCE COLONIALIST POLITICS, PUSHED BY EU, IS A GREAT DANGER TO ALL ASPIRATIONS OF HUMANITY.

LET'S SMARTEN UP AND STOP COVERING UP FOR DIRTY BLOODY COLONIALIST FASCISTS!

A BRIGHT FUTURE FOR THE GLOBE WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE AS LONG AS WE DON'T EXPOSE THE DARK UNDERWORLD, AND SMOKE'EM OUTTA THEIR CAVES!

Hell's Bell's there Persian.........Why don't ya just reach on out of your computer and "*****-slap" me! I agree with you to some extent. I don't thing the Brits really ever got over the U.S. kickin' the **** out of them in 1776 & 1812 When I did alot of work overseas and had to work with the Brits, the conversation always swung around to their excuses for loosing two wars with us. However, if the U.S. doesn't get their heads out of the clouds and start seeing things as they are, we will be in for an embarassment of our own. I am not disputing the fact that there is quite possibly a strong Brittish influence in the mullahs policy making. What I was trying to say is that if Bush started howling about Britain being behind so much of the misery in the Middle East, he'd be walked out of office in a streight jacket. This man can't even call evil doers, evil doers without being portrayed by the media as some sort of right wing whack job on a new crusade. I'd like to see back room politics eradicated too, but as much as I think it should change, it's not going to. Our main problem in the west is our media ( sickeningly liberal and Marxist) and our special interest lobbies. There is so much fat to strip away that it takes forever to get to the meat of an issue. Until that changes, we can't go out as say that Britain is one of our worst enemies in the Middle East. We would be ridiculed beyond belief. I understand what you are saying when you would like to see honest politics instead of the dirty bullshit that we do see. But until we have an honest media ( never happen ) and special interest lobbies have to go away ( wishful but doubtful ) it's not going to happen. That is one of the reasons that conservatives in the U.S. (true conservatives anyway) want small government. The smaller the government the less room there is for corruption. I don't think that the media will ever be made honest and I don't think that special interest will ever lose their influence but if you minimalize it, it will be less of a factor. Remember, everyone has adgenda and it's usually different than yours or mine. The job at hand is to make you adgenda more relevant to the powers that be. I know that you don't like this sort of politics but that is the way it is. You have to market you cause, make it relavent, find ways to get it out to the public (Like this site does) and find allies to your cause. Love it or hate it.......that is the way that it seems to be. This is just my opinion, OK? I am not a foreign policy expert . Just expressing an opinion and trying to be of help if I can. _________________Liberalism is NOT a political philosophy.
It IS a MENTAL DISORDER! (Michael Savage)
Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.